On 23 Sep 2017, at 3:09, Eric Snow wrote:
[...]
``list_all()``::
Return a list of all existing interpreters.
See my naming proposal in the previous thread.
Sorry, your previous comment slipped through the cracks. You
suggested:
As for the naming, let's make it both unconfusing and explicit?
How about three functions: `all_interpreters()`,
`running_interpreters()`
and `idle_interpreters()`, for example?
As to "all_interpreters()", I suppose it's the difference between
"interpreters.all_interpreters()" and "interpreters.list_all()". To
me the latter looks better.
But in most cases when Python returns a container (list/dict/iterator)
of things, the name of the function/method is the name of the things,
not the name of the container, i.e. we have sys.modules, dict.keys,
dict.values etc.. Or if the collection of things itself has a name, it
is that name, i.e. os.environ, sys.path etc.
Its a little bit unfortunate that the name of the module would be the
same as the name of the function, but IMHO interpreters() would be
better than list().
As to "running_interpreters()" and "idle_interpreters()", I'm not sure
what the benefit would be. You can compose either list manually with
a simple comprehension:
[interp for interp in interpreters.list_all() if
interp.is_running()]
[interp for interp in interpreters.list_all() if not
interp.is_running()]
Servus,
Walter
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
